G.R. No. L-19550
June 19, 1967
Facts
A total of 42 search warrants against petitioner and the corporations they represented was issued on different dates. The search warrants directed any peace officer to search the residence, offices, and/or residences of petitioners and to seize the following:
“Books of accounts, financial records, vouchers, correspondence, receipts, ledgers, journals, portfolios, credit journals, typewriters, and other documents and/or papers showing all business transactions including disbursements receipts, balance sheets and profit and loss statements and Bobbins.”
The above-mentioned items are considered as subjects for the offense of “violation of Central Bank Laws, Tariff and Customs Laws, Internal Revenue (Code) and the Revised Penal Code.”
With this, petitioners prayed to the Supreme Court that a writ of preliminary injunction be issued to respondents for they alleged that the search warrants are null and void since it contravenes the Constitution and the Rules of Court. They alleged that the respondent violated their constitutional right against unauthorized search and seizures for the warrants are general in nature as it did not indicate with particularity the things to be seized as well as the offense to which they were charged.
In their defense, respondents-prosecutors alleged (1) that the contested search warrants are valid and have been issued in accordance with law; (2) that the defects of said warrants, if any, were cured by petitioners’ consent; and (3) that, in any event, the effects seized are admissible in evidence against herein petitioners, regardless of the alleged illegality of the aforementioned searches and seizures.
Issues
- Whether or not the petitioners has the right to question the constitutionality of the warrants and seizures in the offices of herein petitioners?
- Whether or not the warrant of arrest is general in nature for not specifying the offense as well as the objects to be seized which follows that it be null and void?
- Whether or not evidence or things taken form unconstitutional search and seizures be admissible?
Held
First Issue
No. The Court held that the legality of seizure can be questioned only by the party whose rights are impaired thereby and that the objection is purely personal and cannot be availed by the third persons. In this case, the petitioner has no right to question the constitutionality of the search and seizures in the offices since the corporation has distinct personality with herein petitioners. Hence, the writ of preliminary injunction with regards to search and seizure made in the offices were denied.
Second Issue
Yes. Under Section 2, Article III of the 1987 Constitution, there are two requisites to be considered in order that the search and seizure is constitutional. First, the warrant shall be issued upon probable cause as determined by the judge. Second, the warrant shall determine or describe the things to be searched.
In this case, none of the two requisites were satisfied by the respondent. The first requisite was not complied since there is no specific offense that is specified in the warrant as it only provides that there is a violation of “Central Bank Laws, Tariff and Customs Laws, Internal Revenue (Code) and the Revised Penal Code” without specifying which sections of the said laws were violated. Hence, the _ search warrants were not granted upon probable cause._
On the other hand, the second requisite is not satisfied since there is a provision in the warrant that says “other documents and/or papers showing all business transactions including disbursement receipts, balance sheets and related profit and loss statements.” It is clear from the wording of the search warrants that it does not describe which specific thing is to be seized.
Therefore, the search warrants did not comply with the constitutional mandate against unreasonable search and seizures.
Third Issue
No. The Court overruled the ruling in Moncado v. People which provided that evidence taken from unauthorized search and warrants are admissible. With that, the Court adopted the exclusionary rule – evidence obtained from unauthorized search and seizure are no longer admissible. This is so in order to enforced the constitutional injunction on unreasonable search and seizure. Hence, the evidence obtained from unreasonable search and seizure are no longer admissible.